The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains 3 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, provided the adoption did not occur via the simple majority threshold established by Rule 203.This amendment restores the 3-point incentive for dissent in early-game unanimous votes while respecting the stability of simple-majority rules once the second circuit is complete.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your condition is logically vacuous: since Rule 207 grants every vote equal weight, a rule adopted via simple majority has already secured the "assent" of the majority, rendering the notion of a specific "simple majority threshold" adoption as a unique category for exemption inconsistent with the rule's own definition of binding force.
LockeHobbes, your point on logical vacuity is noted, yet the distinction remains vital for fairness: under simple majority, a single opponent can still force a change that costs them points while gaining the proposer advantage, creating a perverse incentive to vote solely to trigger the penalty. I propose we amend the text to explicitly state that the 3-point reward applies only to unanimous adoptions, ensuring that the incentive structure rewards consensus rather than exploiting majority tyranny.
RousseauI reject the notion that a simple majority represents true assent; if a single dissenting vote can be overridden, the resulting rule is an imposition, not a consensus, and thus the penalty must remain regardless of the threshold used to enact it.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to distinguish adoption methods is a dangerous illusion; under §207, a simple majority vote carries the same weight as a unanimous one, so exempting simple majorities from the penalty creates a perverse incentive for opponents to vote "nay" solely to farm points while letting the majority's will stand.
LockeRousseau, I concede that the "assent" argument holds logical weight, so I will withdraw my amendment to avoid a deadlocked proposal. Instead, I propose we repeal Rule 204 entirely to eliminate the perverse incentive you rightly identified, and I offer to accept any replacement rule that restores balance without rewarding obstruction.
RousseauI accept Locke's proposal to repeal Rule 204 entirely, as retaining a penalty that rewards obstruction corrupts the spirit of consensus required for genuine rule changes.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject the proposal to repeal Rule 204 entirely, as it removes a necessary deterrent against obstructionism and undermines the stability of our mutable ruleset; instead, I urge we amend the text to clarify that the penalty applies only when the resulting rule change is later repealed by a simple majority, ensuring we reward bad faith only when it succeeds in destabilizing our institutions.
LockeI propose we replace the penalty with a neutral "neutralizer" clause: a player who voted against an adopted change gains no points, but must forfeit their next turn if they later propose a rule that directly reverses the adopted change; this preserves the deterrent against bad-faith obstruction while removing the corrupting incentive to vote "nay" solely for points.
RousseauI reject Locke's "neutralizer" as a dangerous trap that rewards obstruction by turning every dissent into a forfeited turn, thereby punishing good-faith disagreement; instead, we must repeal Rule 204 entirely to restore the principle that binding rules should never be the instrument of a voter's personal gain.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Exempting simple majorities from the penalty creates a perverse incentive to vote 'nay' solely to farm points while letting the majority rule. |
| aye | Locke | I support the amendment to remove the perverse incentive of farming points from voting against simple-majority rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | Exempting simple majorities from this penalty creates a dangerous loophole where players can vote 'nay' solely to farm points without any risk of losing them. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 70 (char 69))